Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @03:15AM
from the don't-be-rude-to-your-host dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As first-person shooters have evolved, they've transitioned from using Nazis as the bad guys to more modern organizations, such as the Taliban. Two recent games, Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, have both shown the country of Pakistan in a very negative light, and now shopkeepers in the country are beginning to boycott the games. 'Saleem Memon, president of the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association, said he had written to members ordering them not to stock the controversial games after receiving dozens of complaints. ... The latest installment of the Medal of Honor series opens with American Navy Seals coming ashore in Karachi docks on a mission to destroy a black market arms shipment. But when their detonation sets off a second, bigger explosion they realize they have stumbled on a much bigger terrorist plot, sparking a global manhunt. A chaotic car chase through the city follows amid warnings that the ISI — Pakistan's intelligence agency — is on the way. Mr. Memon added there was a danger children would be brainwashed into thinking foreign agents were at war inside Karachi, possibly leading them into the arms of militants. "These games show a misleading idea of what is happening in the city. You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said.'"

Well for some old, anecdotal info: When I was deployed to Saudi in the early 90s you could get any software title for ~3 riyal per 3.25 floppy. From single disk games to 15+ disk AutoCAD. A guy was just sitting in the store making copies while you wait or shop elsewhere. That was 20 years ago in a different country but they were cutting people's hands off for stealing too.

Bin Laden isn't a war criminal for targeting the Pentagon in and of itself, that's a valid military objective. He's a war criminal for targeting the Towers, and using 747s full of civilians to do it, deliberately, deliberately killing thousands of civilian innocents in the process. Bush did not target civilians, period. The US tries to avoid collateral damage - one reason we spent so much damn $$ on smart bombs and laser guided munitions. It'd be a lot cheaper and less risky to just carpet bomb with traditional bombs, if that's what the US really wanted.

Did you see the dead picture of the most wanted terrorist? or you just believed what the government told you. They throw him into the sea LOL ! stupid people and their cunning government. Ohh FYI! USA has built the largest embassy of the world in Karachi,Pakistan. Hmmm now why would they build that on that big of a scale in a country they portray as the terrorist shelter. You think of that while US kill thousands of innocents in drone and not let it appear in the news.

BTW FEMA photographer has ample amount of media with him that can prove 9/11 was an inside job. Alas!

There are plenty of games in which you can play as the Nazis, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union in a hypothetical WW3, or even the confederacy during the civil war. And all of those are fairly universally considered to be the "bad guys". And Hitler and Stalin, in particular had body counts that OBL only matched in his wildest wet dreams.

So do you really imagine that there's something special about "the terrorists" that it would be too controversial or in such poor taste that no game maker will ever go the

Except for the issue that no game company would do something so controversial, and even if one had the balls, no publisher would touch it with a hundred foot pole. We can't even let kids die in video games. You really think a game about being a terrorist would actually get publishing deals?

Shit would be all over the news how we're training kids to be terrorists and there would be all sorts of lobbying for it to get banned.

Except for the issue that no game company would do something so controversial, and even if one had the balls, no publisher would touch it with a hundred foot pole. We can't even let kids die in video games. You really think a game about being a terrorist would actually get publishing deals?

Shit would be all over the news how we're training kids to be terrorists and there would be all sorts of lobbying for it to get banned.

It would be a goddamn nightmare.

Tell that to Commander Shepard. He was having nightmares through out ME3 after watching a kid die.

He means that the main character can't kill kids (although there are exceptions -- if you've ever played Heavy Rain to the end, you'll know what I mean). The last game I remember you could do that (because I did it accidentally once) was Fallout (the original), and I think in the sequel you could as well. If you did, you got labeled a "child killer" and people would shun you. It's also possible in the turn based strategy game, Jagged Alliance 2, but again, if you do, the whole village you're trying to lib

Anybody have any info on the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association? If I google it, all I get are links to different versions of this story. If a shopkeeper or group of shopkeepers decide they don't want to stock particular titles, that's a commercial decision they are perfectly entitled to take and - if they are part of a competitive marketplace and have competition who might decide differently - it doesn't really raise any freedom or censorship issues. Certainly, supermarkets in the US/UK have decided at times not to stock games which have the highest age-ratings, because they don't fit with their brand image or perceived clientelle. It doesn't matter, because you can still get the games from Amazon or another high-street retailer.

If, on the other hand, this Association is some kind of Government standards-body, or if it's a trade-association which you have to be a member of if you want to sell games (giving it genuine market-control) then that's more serious.

And as an aside, I'd note that plenty of games have sold well in the US despite having the Americans as either morally ambiguous or outright baddies (indeed, not to defend Call of Duty, but most of its games fall into the first of those categories) - and that here in the UK, being made into the baddies in games and films is pretty much standard fare.

I can assure you that if a game that showed american soldiers raping children and killing innocent people in Irak for fun were developed, nobody would ever publish or stock it. The download site would get DDOSed constantly too.

Hell, even 100% proven, documented stuff like showing warrantless arrests with no trial in gitmo and torture would be a major no-no.

Given that a simple comment from the Dixie Chicks along the line of "We are disappointed that Bush is from Texas" resulted in CD crushings (apparently they don't burn) and radio bans, you are probably right.

Contrary to popular perception, the average Pakistani probably hasn't even *seen* a gun.

Based on what? Their constitution [wikipedia.org] allows for gun ownership, and "There are an estimated 20 million firearms in public ownership, of which 7 million are registered among the country's population of 180 million.[8] The rate of private gun ownership is 11.6 firearms per 100 people".

How could they have possible not at least seen a gun? The military tends to keep them on display from what I can tell from any news footage I'

Because the United States is a (relatively) peaceful nation by comparison?Aren't these military simulation games supposed to be aiming at realism? And their target market has a lot of people who served in "military actions" in that part of the world.

Maybe as soon as there's another war actually on the soil of the lower 48 states we'll get that Pakistani agent game.

The United States (geographical area) is relatively peaceful. The politicians who control the United States (political entity) are far from peaceful. GP was referring to the former as evidenced by his "war actually on the soil".

One of the most popular game franchises in the history of the country is based precisely on crime and murder in the United States...

...proving the point that Americans will consume anything, so long as its a simulation curiously similar to real life.

We just don't give a shit what others think that we should think. The main character in War Games, David L. Lightman, chose to play the Russians and nuke the fuck out of America. Nobody protested the movie, and none of you thought about this fact until just

Actually, the referee sees the low blows, but then the boxer can veto any decision from the referee and all the referee can do is make some annoyed noises. I still have to figure a way to insert Don King in this analogy.

They have an active insurgency in their tribal region as well as a cease-fire in place with India which is currently being violated on both sides, while covertly supporting an insurgency in Afghanistan. Oh, and supporting education for girls will get you shot in the head, even if you are an eleven year old girl!

Probably because most game developers are Americans, catering to a primarily-American audience. Their aren't many games with Pakistani protagonists because Pakistanis don't write many games, and any they do write probably aren't localized for English.

So Pakistan is a country that supports terrorism you claim.Then if for instance Iran was a major contributor to the ruling regime in Pakistanit would be easy to conclude that Iran is supporting terrorism by supporting Pakistan.

So, since the United States is one of the biggest donor of aid to Pakistanhttp://transition.usaid.gov/pk/about/budget.html [usaid.gov]And that we have lifted the arms embargo and are presently upgrading theirF16 fighters and selling them more F16 fighters, does that count asthe US supporting terrorism, by supporting Pakistan?

We bribe them so they aren't worse, and to prevent somebody worse from coming to power. Nobody expects them to be good. That being said, it's getting to the point where they can't possibly get much worse, so you're right to question why we continue to give them free shit.

I remember playing "raid over Moscow" when I was a kid, which was a C64 game where you had to fly a bomber to the Kremlin, kill its guards, and blow it up. I suspect that it wouldn't sell well in the USSR, and that if somebody published the very same game today as "raid over Washington" replacing the Kremlin with the White House then it wouldn't sell well in the USA. People don't enjoy being offended, especially by propaganda, especially when it touches open wounds.

If the games were set in fictitious countries, they'd get dinged for it.
An interesting writing challenge for these games would be to anonymise the locations - in effect, to amplify the murky nature of the operations concerned. "We were down in South America somewhere, some rathole of a banana republic..." or "We'd been travelling upriver for a couple of days, heading deep into African jungle..."
The original Bond books did it quite well - the idea that the top echelons of the various intelligence agencies had realised that they were all on the same side (i.e. the side that likes money and power in quite huge quantities) and were running their own organisation that wasn't based on or in any particular country. And they weren't going to let any grubby little politicians mess it up.

This is just a storm in a teacup situation; For one, now one gives a flying fuck, and secondly, pirates CDs for 30 rupees (~30 cents) each man, if one shop doesn't, you don't think there are 100 other shops in the same damn plaza who will provide it?Besides they haven't been able to stop outright *porn*, they will do something like this? Yeah right.

Go back people, noting to see here, no one cares except some bourgeois who like to #TweetLikeABurger . Mr "Association President" just wanted the world to know that (a) He exists; and (b) Vote for me at the next association election!

This isn't even news here, I didn't even know this was an issue (For once, Slashdot provides news on time!). We are more concerned over CNG (no fuel for cars, winter heaters or stoves), or the fact that the investigator who was investigating corruption charges against our PM conveniently committed suicide (The fact that there were signs of torture, or that he had sent SMS to pals regarding him being pressurised to change evidence is obviously unrelated.)

Come on people, we are people of, what, 180 million? Most of whom can't even afford to feed them self, much less buy games. We are Hungry, cold, freezing and Immobile, not to mention without work. We have better thing to worry about, besides, no one can outdo us in cursing our nation, I am sure your games pale in comparison.

What sort of arrogant patronising bullshit is this? Be happy it's only rabidly corrupt people, other wise it could be *GASP* the mullahs! What difference does it make for us? One of our harshest laws was made not by a mullah but by the Prime-Minister elected from a Secular party, he sold out for some votes, does it make any difference?

We are *actually* regressing backwards! We used to have plentiful electricity due to our big dams, plenty of fuel from our gas fields, people were poor, but damn, at least you

We cooperate with the corrupt administrations only because you have them. Is it our fault Pakistan is corrupt? We're just playing into your system and it's in our interests to do so. We'll play ball with whoever is willing. We're not supporting so much as we're paying a tax to make sure your leaders aren't overtly hostile.

If you want to roll the dice with a revolution and see what pops up, that's your concern, but if it results in overtly hostile actions against the US or our allies, I guarantee things

I mean geez, it's not like helicopters of commandos are landing to storm armed compounds in the middle of cities, to kill the most wanted terrorist ever (who's been 'hiding' there in plain sight for years).

It's not a ban, it's a boycott. Turns out that people don't like games where the best the can be is set dressing for the glorification of a violent foreign power when that same power back in the real world indiscriminately sends out robots to bomb the next village on a weekly basis.

Let's be fair to the game companies. They tried localizing the games for the Pakistani audience; but it turns out going from cave to cave while hiding from the Great Satan's minions doesn't make for exciting gameplay.

The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think. In Afghanistan NATO compensates for the damage, which inspires villagers to quickly bury donkies and claim them as killed civilians since the payoff is worth it.

Of course, if you are a cultural relativist you will excuse the jihadis for their violence and instead simply condemn the US/West/Israel for trying to defend their citizens against these vicious killers. You'll then probably come up with the excuse that the jihadis do it because they are poor (Osama bin Laden was rich), had their land 'stolen' (jihadis have been operating for 1400 years) or some other lame excuse. All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.

Meanwhile you'll probably ignore the hundreds of madrassas pumping out replacement zombies ready to kill Afghan villagers. You'll also ignore the Pakistani ISI and the crime syndicates and opium lords who provide the money for the Taliban. You'd much rather cherish the thought that the West is the bad guy for standing up to these brigands and crazed zealots.

Keep dreaming your false dream. Meanwhile the rest of us will be doing what we can to argue for our rights (stop creeping Sharia and 'cultural jihad' in the West!) and even for your rights. Hopefully one day you'll get a clue and realise who the evil guys really are - the ones that think it nothing to kill little girls for trying to get an education, or kill girls who don't want to be married to old men four times their age, or kill Muslims from another sect, or kill people just working in a building in Manhattan, or riding a bus in London, or a train in Spain, etc etc. That's the real evil.

I don't think you have to be a jihadist to worry that the U.S.'s policy for combating it is insufficiently cautious about "collateral damage". There is also a realpolitik question of whether it's actually effective: bombing the bad guys may feel good, but from a rational perspective feeling good and killing bad guys is not sufficient, and is counterproductive if you cause so much negative sentiment that you inflame anti-American sentiment among the local population, increasing terrorist groups' ability to recruit new members and find sympathetic people to shelter them. In some cases bombing works, and in other cases it does not work, and I think it's legitimate to ask whether the strategy the U.S. is currently pursuing is actually working, or is intended just to make it look like they're doing something, to please U.S. voters.

Here's a fun game [newsgaming.com] you can play in which you wipe out terrorists by bombing them.

Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is

I think you have a rather ignorant view of what's going on, which doesn't match historical record or reality. Support for jihadists in Muslim countries has waxed and waned for various reasons. It's completely sensible, if you want to have an actually fact-based policy which causes improvements, rather than a blind-faith-based policy which makes you feel like you're playing a cool videogame and killin' dem brown people, to look at which U.S. policies contribute to waxing versus waning. And I don't think the "fire-and-forget" use of drones is mainly aimed at that kind of optimization. Rather, it's aimed at getting people reelected (and this goes for whether it's Bush or Obama trying to get reelected).

In short, I think your fondness for action films, and possibly some kind of weird bigotry, is clouding your judgment, which is true of many of my countrymen, to the detriment of America's safety. But killin' dem Muslims gets American politicians elected, so they'll keep doing it even when it's dumb. Shock 'n' awe, duuuuude! Mission accomplished! It's like a bunch of you fucking frat boys are in charge; I'd rather have some adults.

Stop slandering me as a bigot, frat boy or videogame freak. The fact you make those arguments shows you can't address my points. My point was that the Free World is hated not for what we do, but for who we are, our beliefs and the fact some of us will stand up for them. Got that, or should I repeat it again so you don't need to make baseless accusations (incidentally, I'm not from the US, so your assumptions are doubly ridiculous). I have provided innumerable citations in my posts to back up my position. Pe

Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers.

The same applies to other religions too. Yet most practitioners aren't as focused on hating and subjugating, but rather on their everyday business.
I think you're overestimating the importance of extremists. Most people there are just trying to survive.

It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength.

You're confusing them with Klingons.

The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means.

You are confusing fiction with real life. For the sake of a cheap gag you discredit yourself. I've been to many countries in the Middle East (have you?). I'm no culture expert but they value and respect strength far more than we do. A man doesn't show weakness or he is shamed (and they worry a great deal about honor and shame - which is why they kill their own daughters, wives and each other).

The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means

Go and look at the surveys and statistics. The 'extremists' narrative is a lie propagated by the self-loathing me

Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).

Nothing really? Invading Iraq and Afghanistan and installing puppet regimes doesn't count? Western powers have interfered in the Middle East for a long time causing enough for the Arab populous to hate them. After WW1, the British and French having promised Arab independence carved up the middle east leading to decades of oppression. That along with GB promising a Jewish state in Palestine, WW2 and declaration of Israel as a state. The US presence in the region came with the departure of European control leading to Soviet interest in the region. It is all this that led to islamic fundamentalism. The invasion of Kuwait led to the first invasion of Iraq and permanent US military presence in the region which Bin Laden used as a reason for 9/11. Since this point, nothing the US has done in the region has endeared them to the Arabs/Muslims. US interference in the region is driven by resources and not by the welfare of the populations. Organisations like Al Qaeda have benefited from US interference - whether it is true or not CIA funded/trained Al Qaeda directly US presence training forces in the region has allowed them access to it. Overall, the US and the West in general have done a lot for the Middle East population not just 'jihadis' as you call them to hate us. With regard to Israel, without the US backing them they would not be in the position they are in now. No longer the persecuted but now the persecutors. Without the broken promises of the West (GB to be precise), Israel would not exist (at least where it is now). You don't have a clue.

Back to the games.. the FPS modern military shooter is getting way overdone now. Don't think its a bad thing they're banning them. We should probably do the same as it would save us money as they are all the same now. Warfighter was the biggest pile of poo I have played in a long time and CoD is just the same. They should do another BF 2142 or something. That was pretty good with the mechs, pods etc.. and titan mode was great.

There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you

Okay, let's have a thought experiment. Let's say that some unkown force starts to bomb places in the US. They claim they're targetting only "militants" and warmongerers but every now and again they happen to kill the entire family, a few neughbours etc. Are you telling me that this would not cause everyday citizens to become enraged at whoever it was that was doing this? And that the recruitment officials wouldn't use it as a marketing tactic to get young men (and women) to enlist? Because that's essentially what you're doing right now. And your take on this seems to be along the lines of "well, we can't reason with their ideological leaders, so we might just as well not give a fuck about what the general populace thinks of us."

You're missing something important here: jihadists don't appear out of nowhere. These kids don't list "suicide bomber" as their dream job when they grow up. They're recruited - just like american soldiers. The difference is, recruiting is not exactly hard when you can just walk into a neighborhoodthat recently had a drone strike and find the relatives/friends of those who've died on that strike and start talking to them about vengeance.

So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.

You tried the "The communists hate because they hate us and you can't reason with them so we must destroy them all" -tactic with much greater force in Vietnam and it failed there. And islam played no part in that whatsoever. All you've done now is replaced the Viet Cong with terrorists/jihadists and communism with islam.

The problem is that the middle east is pretty F-ed up politically, and economically.

It's more analogous to if during prohibition the U.S. government had allied with martians to take down Al Capone and the other gangsters by deploying martian tripods to destroy speakeasies.

The U.S. is undertaking the drone strikes with the permission of the local government and usually the drones launch from that very government's military bases. The local government doesn't like these people any more than the U.S. does, and

Bullshit. The jihadis have been art war with every non-Muslim for 1400 years. You are an idiot if you think it is because of something the US did, or the Zionist movement in Palestine. The Muslims hate us and are working to subjugate us and put us in the Islamic social system - and have been doing this for 1400 years. Your argument is complete rubbish (peddled by the political Left because it has common cause with Islam in seeking destruction of existing society).

So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.

More crap. The drones are a huge issue in Pakistan because the Pakistani ISI *created and support the Taliban* and the drones are so effective at taking the Taliban down. There is also a soveriegnty issue as well, but given the Pakistani ISI are covertly fighting the Free World this is dismissed. The line about drone strikes making more enemies is rubbish. The majority of Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban. If the people in the madrassas are angry who cares? they hate us anyway. Your average ignorant citizen around the world responds to what they are told: and the Left media, for its own reasons, says that opposing violent islamo-fascists is bad (they are idiots because they are ignorant of Islams intended aims). The people around the World are peeved because of the media spin, if they saw the full picture (or are in a country ruined by jihadis) then they vehemently disagree with your leftist point-of-view.

It is clear you don't know very much about the history of Islam or the contemporary situation at all. Hence you defend the indefensible.

I don't think you have to be a jihadist to worry that the U.S.'s policy for combating it is insufficiently cautious about "collateral damage".

Actually, the jihadists don't worry about this, especially if the people accidentally being killed are not particularly sympathetic to their goals. They'd love it if that person's extended family was radicalized and perhaps provided some new recruits. As with the Southern Cause in the US Civil War, some were fighting because they believed in the Southern Way of Life

Please follow my suggestion. Go and watch Stephen Coughlin's analysis on YouTube. Then come back and insult me - at least then you might be able to grasp what I'm telling you (which is *fact*). If you watch those intelligence briefings and still think I'm full of shit I'll be very happy to be corrected.

All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.

Yeah, in the same way that the bible make stoning children to death obligatory for the Christian believer. I can't see the US fighting against fundamentalist Christians.
The US is attacking those people because they became a serious threat to the US goals in that region (mainly "We want the oil!"), mostly caused by the US itself by giving money and training to those people some time before, without thinking about the consequences.
I don't have to be a "cultural relativist" to see that, these are enemies of

It is clear you haven't read the Qur'an and don't understand Islam at all. You are speaking from a position of total ignorance. I hope when the jihadis come for you then you explain how you support them. They might wait for you to finish speaking before they take your head off, like Daniel Pearl etc.

We want the oil!

This is the mantra of the ignorant. Oil is a factor for sure but not the prime motivation of the US. You see, some parts of the US actually do understand what Islam commands (which you clearly do not - and hav

The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think

Ah, I see, you count the families of the "jihadis" as combatants and not civilians. Why not just say that anyone in the whole village is giving support to a terrorist, and so isn't a civilian either?

Eventually, you'll be able to show that no more than a handful of real civilians have ever been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And I'm sure you'd approve if terrorists started shooting soldiers' wives and kids back home and claiming them as legitimate military targets.

It is the jihadis who are violating the international rules of war by hiding among civilians (eg. preparing bombs in their compounds). These rules require the drones to minimize casualties when going after the jihadis but recognize such people are legitimate targets even when hiding with their families.

It is a war crime to deliberately target civilians targets (with no nearby military facilities) which is why Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc have a modus operandi that is entirely wa

Have you read the Qur'an? obviously not. Read the hadiuths? obviously not. You are both closed minded and have an inaccurate view of Islam. How about you start with the following link and open your eyes to the fact I'm not bigoted (as you so incorrectly assume), it's just I have actually read the hate-speech warlord manifesto called the Qur'an and the brutal history recorded in the hadiths:http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html [wvinter.net]

That doesn't matter, since verse 8:60 orders you to prepare for armed struggle without any reference to other obligations. If I understand it correctly, the ability criteria for requiring an individual to be prepared for Jihad per 8:60 are the same as for the same individual to take part in Hajj.

what is this free world you speak of? the land where TSA feels up your children every time you travel? where CCTV monitors your every move, government agancies have warrantless access to all your communication logs and can listen in whenever they want? where all that's needed to keep you in prison without due process is label you as a terrorist? where people don't get tortured, only waterboarded? That country is morally already in stone age!

What the airport police in Europe are also known as TSA?
Seriously the places I have had the most pat down has been in Europe(UK and Germany) including the point where I had to throw 1/4 of the toothpaste tube away because the original full size was over the allowed amount.
USA customs are usually really easy and quick.
Easiest so far have been the middle east, if the alarms go off then do a quick pat of your pockets and if nothing in them you go on.

Pakistan has a bad image because of this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks [thereligionofpeace.com] Most attacks are Muslim-on-Muslim . or on little girls that want education etc. This video game does nothing to their already well-deserved terrible reputation.